While we all know how this is going to turn out in the end, Daley is correct in that the SCOTUS decision doesn't affect state and local laws. Yet. The wording used by Scalia leaves little doubt the Second Amendment will be "incorporated" like the others have been, it is only a matter of time and lawsuits like the ones against Chicago and SanFran. SCOTUS can only rule on issues before them, and "incorporation" was not before them. With donkeyholes like Daley leading the charge, incorporation is almost assured.

Pity they don't realize getting rid of an absolute ban and replacing it with a new law that at least has a chance of allowing gun ownership in the home would forestall many of the lawsuits and delay or perhaps even eliminate the possibility of incorporation. Remember the SCOTUS only explicitly struck down an absolute ban on handguns, if no such ban exists anywhere beyond DC then there is no case that can be brought before SCOTUS to bring on incorporation.

Krink.

Can you please say that for dummies like me. So what you are saying is the law is only good in D.C. I don't get it.
Is not the Supreme Court the final word on the subject. How the hell can Daley just ignore what there decision is.
What the hell good is a Supreme Court if nobody has to pay attention to it.

"Man needs but two things to survive alone in the woods. A blow up female doll and his trusty old AK-47" - Thomas Jefferson 1781

The bill of rights only applies to the Federal government, not to states. The SCOTUS ruling only affects federal law at this time, DC is not a state. Over the years individual rights in the BOR have been "incorporated" under the 14th amendment to also apply to states. The second has not, as of yet, been incorporated since a State/local law has not come before them. Once it does, they can incorporate the decision to apply to states and cities as well. Scalia pretty much said as much when he called it a natural right that predates the Constitution. SCOTUS can't rule on an issue not before them, and Heller did not bring any States into the decision as DC is not a state, but a federal district. Heller applies everywhere in the US, but at the moment it only applies to Federal agencies and laws.

Kernel. Thank You.

When a Country becomes a place of so incredibly confusing laws it becomes lawless. This being that the court system becomes so tied up with court cases as to become ineffective. The smartest, usually best paid lawyer, wins. Not what is rite or wrong.
While inpatient at the Miami V.A. for a few months, myself and my roommate, a black Marine, had long discussions on the O.J. Simson case.
Was O.J. guilty? I said "Your missing the point. The white man has been buying his way out of guilty charges for the last two centuries." "This is the first time the white man has watched a black man buy his way out of a guilty charge on national T.V."
No matter your feelings on any of the pro gun groups. The time to donate is now. Cause the more money they have to fight this battle. The better the chances of us keeping our weapons.

"Man needs but two things to survive alone in the woods. A blow up female doll and his trusty old AK-47" - Thomas Jefferson 1781

Well, I just read that Heller filed suit against DC for not honoring the SCOTUS ruling.
I suppose that even if he wins, this thing will go on forever in the lower courts?
The argument of DC state vs district is old and frought with holes.
-A part of the Union(non-foreign embassy)
-has electoral college votes
-has representation in congress
-citizens pay taxes
-DC has non voting representation in congress
-DC operates under home rule, not under the direct supervision of the federal government
the argument that they dont have to abide by federal directives because "they are not a state" is bullshit, but I suppose that it CAN be argued successfully by a lawyer in court?
I Find it silly that the state DO NOT have to abide by the BOR as it were. Althoug, I agree that the initial role of the federal government was assisting the states(a minimalist "hands off" position, giving the states the power), not direct oversight or management. But The Constitution and the BOR are to be adhered to by all members of the Union, yes?

Until the fourteenth amendment was ratified, the Constitution and all it's associated documents (BOR) only and strictly applied to the Federal government.

We were a loose federation of independent States up until that time. States rights trumped Federal powers/rights.

So, when you all say "we've become" a land of confusing laws, don't point to the Constitution and/or BOR, they've always been there and have been applied relatively consistently throughout the history of the country.

Personally, I find it silly, no not silly, a bit disgusting, that I'm seeing posts on a gun-oriented forum that imply members want even more power vested at the Federal level, effectively stripping States rights, in order to assert the natural right of keeping and bearing arms.

If this were a discussion about abortion "rights" the hue and cry would be for local (i.e. State) control, not about Federal power over States. You can't have it both ways.